"I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir ... the Jungian thing, sir."
Private Joker, Full Metal Jacket

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Who is Barack Obama on Sunday?

Let's imagine that it turns out that one of the GOP presidential candidates, let's say it was Fred Thompson, turns out to attend a Eurocentric church in which the Pastor has praised a political leader (think, maybe, David Duke) who is profoundly anti-semitic and has said things like "blacks are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet." Thompson praises the pastor as his spiritual mentor and as someone who has had a profound influence on his life, but says that they don't "agree on everything."

Wouldn't this be an issue? If its important that Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and that George W. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University - if Mitt Romney must bear the weight of his church's racial past - you'd think that this connection would require some exploration.

Of course, Fred Thompson doesn't have such a pastor and spiritual mentor.

But Barack Obama does (the praise being for Louis Farrakhan who made the quoted statement about whites). David Bernstein has more at the Volokh Conspiracy.

As Bernstein points out, it's not that Obama may believe the stuff that Farrakhan does, it's in his claim to be a "uniter" who wants to move past the politics of the past. Unless Obama can somehow make the very real differences we have go away by, I don't know, changing the laws of physics, the real question behind that is "what are boundaries of unity he proposes." On what terms are we to come together?

It has always been a goal of the left to bring whites and blacks together on the common ground of white guilt and black grievance. It hasn't worked yet and it never will. Is that what Obama proposes behind his softer and gentler language?

This is going to be an issue (did Clinton plant this?) and its not an unfair one or a racially charged "smear." We'd ask these questions of my hypothetical Fred Thompson and we ought to ask them of Obama as well.

47 comments:

Veritas Christo et Media
said...

Obama's Church -- Trinity United "Church of Christ" -- just named a certain "Nation of Islam leader" (Louis Farrakhan, for the uninformed) their "Man of the Year" by awarding him the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (pastor of Obama's "church of Christ") Trumpeter Award. Hmmmm. The recipient says Jesus is not Christ but just another prophet like Mohammed (not Obama's middle name, which is Hussein), yet Christianity is founded on the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who is "the way, the truth and the life" through Whom, alone, anyone can "come to the Father" -- "... no one comes to the Father except through me."

I know Dave Zweifel.I like Dave Zweifel.Dave is a good man.Dave is sometmies wrong.In this case, Dave is wrong.

Both Obama and Hillary are the radicalized disciples (to keep the religious theme!) of Saul Alinsky.

This is going to be like watching two old and corrupt third world revolutionary groups pound away at each other with ancient Soviet tanks and AK-47 rifles. One can only hope that in all the dirty fighting they damage each other so badly the voters see they are both unelectable in these modern times.

So that's how it's gonna be, eh, Rick? A little game of "six Degrees of Separation" to find someone somewhere who knew someone who once talked to a person whose magazine once gave an award to Farrakhan? Then Obama disassociates himself with the magazine and with Farrakhan. Good enough for you?

No? Really? Is that all you got? If so, it's going to be a long year for you, my friend. Nobody's buying the old Republican semar tactics. Try something else.

Interesting, though, to hear you still pining for Fred Thompson. If such a connection was made between Thompson's pastor and some offensive person, I would think nobody would waste their time pursuing irrelevant informaiton about someone who is not going anywhere, except back to Hollywood.

Guilt by, third party, association is never becoming. There is nothing in Obama's record to suggest that he has an anti-semitic bone in his body.

All of these charges of racism are becoming extremely ugly.

What has Obama said or done to make you think he wants "to bring whites and blacks together on the common ground of white guilt and black grievance"? I find it offensive that you sugggest the only platform for unity is based on exploiting racial strife. From what I have seen he has never played the black grievance card.

The claims are hardly "guilt by third party association" or six degrees of separation with respect to Obama and Farrakhan.

Just Google the "legitimate" news sources and you will find tha Obama, who's been a TUCC nd a close friend of senior pastor Jeremiah Wright for more than 20 years only disavowed the church and Wright -- acording to Wright himself -- just as he was announcing his bid for president last February. It was then that Obama "disinvited" Wright from speaking,etc. at the public launch of the campaign. And Wright, himself, told the wire services and others he was sure Obama did it in order to distance himself from the connection all of them at TUCC had to Farrakhan for decades, including the co-founding of the militant black "Million Man March," which Wright claims to have co-founded/sponsored with Farrakhan.

It is foolish to simply accuse conservatives or anyone of "smearing" Obama with innuendo or slander. A look at every page on the TUCC site, including the church's "TRUMPET Newagazine" -- founded by the church and Wright with Wright's daughter "Jeri Wright" as editor/publisher -- and the November/December 2007 version of the magazine, which announces TUCC's declaration of Farrakhan as the recipient of the TUCC/Jeremiah Wright Trumpeter's Award for lifetime achievement of high character and integrity, speaks the truth quite clearly.

Integrity, by definition, is soundness -- and to proclaim as "sound" a man who denies the divinity of the one -- jesus Christ -- whom one claims to be the founder and focus of one's own "church" (that is, of course, TUCC) is antithetical to the term integrity itself, as well as any claim to being truly Christian. After all, it is Jesus himself -- not Pat Robertson or Chuck Colson, Martin Marty or Jimmy Carter -- who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man shall come to the Father except through me." Not "except through me and Mohammed," but "except through me [Jesus alone]!"

That is the critical thinking skill Obama has put to his faith. Is that the critical thinking skill he will put to what it means to swear allegiance to our own Constitution, while proudly and unashamedly ascribing to the beliefs and teachings of TUCC, which he has claimed as his church home of more than two decades?

Is this the critical thinking skill you want from someone who wants his trigger finger resting on the nuclear hot button?

If he disavows such teachings, as one commentator here claims, then why does he continue to claim this church, which continues to espouse such religiously contradictory views, as his church home?

It's amazing how much one is willing to turn a blind eye to when they find someone who espouses the sort of clap trap that gets their juices flowing. No doubt, they're hoping Obama will hold annual "Favorite Things" episodes of the Oprah Show -- she just today announced the launch of the OWN (Obama Winfrey Netwwork) in conjunctin with Discovery Communications -- in the Oval Office or Lincoln Bedroom, so that everyone who wants something from the depths of their bottomless Santa Sack of liberal tax the rich and give to the poor like Robin Hood and His Merry Men can sit in the seats and wait for a set of car keys of their own (there certainly won't be tax rebate checks if they deliver on evry promise they've made to every constitency they're pandering to daily (as Mitt Romney does with equal aplomb)!

This is precisely guilt by third party association. Obama has nothing to do with Farakhan. His pastors daughter gave away this award. Thus the third party association. Your Obama as Muslim schtick is a little tired.

I too have problems with Obama's church, but I have problems with everybody's church.

Of course, anything that challenges your limited intellectual faculties is a diatribe.

The facts -- THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH for every devotee of Barack Hussein Obama -- are these:

1) the "newsmagazine" is the official publication of TUCC!!!

2) Jeremiah Wright is the CEO of Trumpet Newsmagazine!

3) TRUMPET's media kit -- available on th www.TUCC.org web site, proclaims on the CEO's page, complete with a photo of Jeremiah Wright -- proclaims that "Trumpet Newsmagazine is an informative, cutting-edge publication that originated as a church newsagazine over 25 years ago. Trumpet was created and founded by the pastor [Jeremiah Wright], and produced by the staff and members of Trinity United Church of Christ."

As for the award given the Farrakhan, it is named after Jeremiah Wright and he is part of the selection committee, etc., and it was given by him as Trumpet CEO and long-time Farrakhan friend, devotee and partner in ...

Most of all, had you read the article in the November/December 2007 issue of "Trumpet," you would have "heard" Jeremiah Wright's trumpet his praises of Farrakhan:

“Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and21st century giants of the African American religious experience,”continues Wright. “His integrity and honesty have secured him aplace in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His lovefor Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettableforce, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincereabout his faith and his purpose.”

The Louis Farrakhan story is one most of us already know, butthat does not diminish its import or impact. Born Louis EugeneWalcott, 73-years ago in the Bronx and raised in Roxbury, MA, the former Calypso singer and classically trained violinist, knew therewas a greater calling on his life. That calling began with his joiningthe Nation in 1955 and changing his name to Louis X. Since thattime, the rest, one could say, is history.

The Minister helped breathe new life into the Nation after thedeath of Elijah Muhammad, attracting thousands upon thousandsof young, eager, African American men who found a home in thefaith, pride in themselves and a leader in the Minister. From thestreets of Chicago’s South Side to the Million Man March and to thegreater Islamic world, the Minister has and is making a difference...

"Because of the Minister’s influence in the African Americancommunity, Trumpet Newsmagazine honors him this winter at itsSounds of the Shore gala with an Empowerment Award. It seemeda fitting tribute for a storied life well lived. And as our brief interviewdrew to a close and he thanked me for taking the time to talk tohim, I could not help but think, the Minister, the man with whom Ihad been so casually speaking, truly epitomized greatness."

Barack is, at most, one step from Farrakhan's "theology," having so boldly and longly claimed Wright, who espouses Farrakhan's theology as one shared by him and preached at his own "church," as his own pastor.

Disavowing Farrakhan is, if I buy your logic, tantamount to disavowing Wright and the cearly stated values and mission of TCC! Is that what you are saying? Had Barack Obama denounced the clearly and publicly stated teachings, values, vision and mission pf Trinity United Church of Christ and Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright?

If so, please cite any published sources on the matter. If not, please enlighten us as to the basis of your claim.

Ultimately, however, it is not a quetion of race, but intellectual integrity and critical thinking skills.

Any man or woman who can claim to embrace the teachings of two religions whose founder's claims about themselves -- and Mohammed's claims about Jesus -- are at fundamental odds with each other, simply lacks the critical thinking skills, character and integrity to desere the support of any thinking person. After all, a house divided against itself cannot stand!

I will accept his "claim" that he is a Christian, but find it dubious, at best.

His campaign slogan proclaims "Change You Can Believe In."

It seems that Obama believes that his own faith is something that can change with the winds of public office seeking pragmatic faith of fashion.

It's no wonder he doesn't want to talk about race in this campaign. If he did, he'd actually have to explain why it is he has sat in the pews for 20 years in a church whose clearly espoused "theology of race" is so clearly and exclusively "afrocentric" and whose claims to be Christian are undercut entirely by their devotion to the teachings and "ministry" of Louis Farrakhan (clearly reflected on the church's web site statement of values, mission and vision, etc.). If he so truly disavows such teachings, why does he do so? And if he does so, why does he continue to sit in the pews of a church wose teachings he, according to you, finds so offensive?

No diatribe.

No pejorative.

Just a reminder that a life unexamined is a life not worth living.

A candidate unexamined is a candidate not worth electing.

But you would have us not examine this.

And, oh, by the way, I am part of an all black church that accepts God's Word when it says there is, in Christ, no slave or free man, no Greek or Scythian, no Jew or Gentile, but that all are equa and one in Christ and the Father -- who is, His Word says, "no respecter of persons."

God is not remotely impressed with me. He certainly isn't impressed with someone who claims to have, as Obama does, "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," but who makes his "church home" in a place where it is overtly and unashamedly taught that the teachings of Islam and Farrakhan, both of which deny the divinity of Christ.

You can't have it both ways, 3rd.

Then again, from your name, you probably want it all three ways, whatever that third way is for you.

"Devotion to the teachings and 'ministry' of Louis Farrakhan"? What, by writing a positive magazine article about Farrakhan in Chicago, where the Nation of Islam has actually done quite a bit of good? How is that "devotion" to anything, any more than a fraternal recognition of another religious leader? I don't see anything on the web site that is any more than standard Christian teaching, informed, as it should be, by the African-American experience and challenging economic conditions of the faithful.

The over-heated screeching of the veritas commenter(s) here says more about the ridiculous feuds that sometime infect various Christian denominations than it does about Obama, who goes to church on Sunday, has a friendly relationship with the pastor, as do all prominent parrishiners (sp?) do with their pastors, and goes about his business. All this other nonsense, including Rick's original insinuations, are a hysterical smear.

"Six degrees of separation?" - It's not that far. I think it's implausible that, in the hypothetical I posited, Thompson's connection with a preacher who had endorsed a racist and anti-semite would be an issue. (Incidentally, I don't know why anyone would think I "pine" for Thompson. I picked him because he seems to have the least viable candidacy so he would be the most neutral to use.)

As I said, I don't wonder whether Obama agrees with Farrakhan. As I said, I am sure that he does not. But people who propose to unite are either saying one of two things. The first is that they can convince us that our differences don't matter or propose solutions that transcend those differences. There is no evidence that Obama is bringing a bit of that.

So "unity" means staking out a ground that most people can occupy. If Jeremiah Wright is one of your most profound influences, it raises questions regarding what that ground might be.

It may well be that Obama can answer them but he ought not be surprised or put out that the question has been raised.

The Clinton/Bush hegemony is suddenly threatened by a young upstart who, from their perspective, doesn't deserve and hasn't earned the role of Oliver Cromwell in this election. Think of it - Obama in their eyes is virtually a foreigner, and barely a christian, to boot! The very fact of all the dialogue (especially because it doesn't resolve anything) works to Hillary's advantage because of the doubt it sows that Obama can be a uniter and a leader. What the Clintons are doing is in its essence portraying Obama as the Manchurian Candidate. And not many have to buy into that to thwart his campaign.

Obama has a mentor that is clearly not racially inclusive nor diverse.Up until now that has been a sin in lib circles.The media seems to be asleep at the wheel here. Is anyone surprised. I mean anyone besides the usual dishonest libs who inhabit this thread?Any Republican who had even 1/2 degree separation from an obviously racist pastor would be vilified and pillaried.We all know that. The difference in most of these debates is that libs lie and are dishonest, and have no conscience about it.

Joe, you're missing the point. This is all about identity, meaning that what the Clintons are doing is sowing mistrust about who Obama is, that perhaps he is not really a friend, or a member of the tribe. Its all insidious, and it will probably work....

Who said anything about Wright being a "profound influence", much less a "mentor" to Obama? There seems to be quite a bit of intentional exageration here -- of Obama's connection to Wright, of Wright's to Farrakhan, etc.

And, you are wrong about your Thompson hypothetical, Rick. If we explored the religious connections of the various religious charlatans connected to Republicans, there would be no end to the useful material -- magazine tributes being, I'm sure, the least of it. It's hard enough to figure out who's been visiting the White House these days, much less who the various claimed pastors of the fake sanctimonious Republicans are hanging around with. As a matter of fact, I don't know what church Fred Thompson is claiming to attend these days, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't connected to some nefarious characters somehow or other.

Who cares? There are bigger fish to fry. Unless, that is, you are desperate for material to attack an attractive politician that threatens your dying status quo. I didn't know you guys were so hard up.

Seems that Mike Plaisted is PLASTERED when he thinks and writes! [That's writes, not Wrights.] Though one can only laugh at his own lack of intellectual integrity -- Plaisted's that is, as well as Wright's.

It is he, Plaisted, who refuses to address the facts as contained in the writings and proclamations of the principle subjects of this particulr blog string. It is laisted who blindly throws aout pejorative attacks. And it is Plaisted who argues that simply because something allegedly does something good it is good.

No doubt, the crucifixion of Christ did a lot of good for Caiaphis and his ilk, and washed Pilate's hands of an unruly and blood lusting crowd.

I guess there in Jerusalem a little story in the Jewish newsmagazine proclaiming the glories of Rome, Pilate, Caiaphis and Caesar simply showed a little "fraternal recognition of another religious leader" (after all, it was Caesar who had declared himself God and alone worthy of the worship and devotin of all men, oh hopelessly Plaisted one).

"Devotion to the teachings and 'ministry' of Louis Farrakhan"?' PLISTED writes. "What, by writing a positive magazine article about Farrakhan in Chicago, where the Nation of Islam has actually done quite a bit of good?"

One might just call such words praise, but PLAISTED refuses to address the fundamental questions of indefensible and untenable theological inconsistencies, contradictions, heresies and apostasy inherently present in the stands tha OBAMA and Wright have staked out for themselves -- as well as every other member of TUCC! "Woe to you who call good evil and evil good." (Ooops, but that was Jesus saying that and not just some "overheated screeching commenter(s)," as we who dare challenge PLAISTED and his Golden {Boy} Idol. (Yeah, I can now see PLAISTED at the base ofthe mountain bowing and worshipping in delight as Moses arrives from on high with the etched laws of God in his hands, calling evil good and good evil, simply because some people there were helped by the chance to "worship" the wrong god in the Wright way and the Right God in the wrong way.

"Wot to you, scribes and pharisees," Someone once said, and "you heal the wounds of my people lightly saying "Peace, peace," where there is no peace."

And, we can probably be sure, PLAISTED, that your argument applied to all sorts of other situations -- after all, truth is not really relative, unles it helps your relatives -- means that we had no business challenging Hitler, David Dukes, Apartheid, abortion, nor the crucifixion of Jesus. After all, the economic plight of the German people was vastly improved under the Nazis (right, PLAISTED?,) Dukes was only endorsing the status quo that worked so well for so long in the American South (right, PLAISTED?,), Apartheid worked well throughout Africa for the whites, abortion works well for the inconvenienced mother, and the crucuifixion got Jesus off the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities. All of thoser "communities" were helped -- not so differently from the way you say Farrakhan "helped" Chicago (though he leads the "NATION of Islam," not the "CITY of Islam").

And PLAISTED, me WASTED friend asks: "How is that "devotion" to anything, any more than a fraternal recognition of another religious leader?"

That is devotion to SOMETHING over the truth of what Jesus said about Himself and His Father!

"If you are not for me," Jesus said, "you are against me."

And, "I'd rather that you be hot or cold, but because you are luke warm I will spit you out of my mouth."

The water you're wading in is frighteningly deep, PLAISTED, and terribly tepid. Especially noteworthy when you write this little gem from the breastplate of Caiaphas: "I don't see anything on the web site that is any more than standard Christian teaching, informed, as it should be, by the African-American experience and challenging economic conditions of the faithful."

For standard Christian teaching, it is resoundingly radical and racist in and of itself. I have traveled the world for nearly 30 years as a Christian journalist, missionary and pasto and I have never seen, outside the likes of David Dukes and Louis Farrkhan, anyone who has espoused such racism and hatred dare to call themselves a Christian.

Yet, just as you espouse clap trap about Wright, Obama, Farrkhan and more without a single reference to or defense of them from the written text, you fail or refuse to do so in your arrogance and or ignorance of the biblical text they claim to following when taking on the name "Christian" or calling their gathering of human beings a "church."

And as for your claim that it is "standard Christian teaching," please quote for me passages from your Bible that affirm that claim. Mine seems to have them all redacted. [Probably printed by racist white publishers.]

"The over-heated screeching of the veritas commenter(s) here," PLAISTED concludes, "says more about the ridiculous feuds that sometime infect various Christian denominations ..."

This is not a dispute between denominations, PLAISTED, but a revelation from true believers that Wright, Farrakhan and your "savior" Obama are all self-styled emporers who have no clothes. That ain't "going negative," PLAISTED. That's going veritas/truth!

But you can't handle the truth! Which explains this from you:

"Obama, who goes to church on Sunday, has a friendly relationship with the pastor, as do all prominent parrishiners (sp?) do with their pastors, and goes about his business."

His business is apparently "meeting Jesus" (as he claimed to do, at the feet of one who does not preach or teach the Jesus Who preached and teached Himself in God's revealed and recorded Word, then going out and claiming a "relationship with Jesus." Barack Obama's got a relationship with Jesus that is little or no different than his relationship with George W. Bush: angry, distrustful, fractured and factious.

Interstingly enough, it is you who are now doing with respect to Obama and Wright what Obama has done for more than 20 years, by his own and Wright's own accounts, with respect to Jesus: fill the pews for 50 or 100 or more hours per year for a total of a few thousand hours then claim you should not be connected nor associated with the very people you break bread with more than weekly. (Also note Michelle Obama's public comments based on long-time close friendship with the music minister at TUCC who was allegedly murdered two days ago. These are not passing relationships, but much, much more.) Funny enough, in order to claim "the prize" he has to avert his eyes and deny his pastor and savior -- or, at least, have people like you do it for him.

So if Obama and his pastor are just collegial buddies and nothing more, why was it that Obama had invited Wright -- of all the religious leaders in the world -- to be with him on the platform when heannoucned for president last February, then, according to Wright, "disinvite" him? [Google the AP and Chicago news reports -- I can't do all your work for you!] Wright himself is quoted as saying that it is because Obama feared that his own ties to Farrakhan and radical Nation of Islam teachings would be exposed.

Sounds like PLAISTED and Obama are both sheep of the same fold: wolves in sheeps clothing.

Only difference is that, at least here, PLAISTED is the Judas Goat leading the other true sleep to the slaughter!

Be forewarned folks. Almost nothing PLAISTED has said or written -- his allegations -- can be proved or disproved against the factual record (and that which can to his shame), since it is character assassination and soft-peddling of baloney and pejorative attacks on anyone who dares to challenge his buddy, Obama. But everything I have written can be tested against the written record created by God Himself and Jesus (through the Bile even they claim as their guiding text), TUCC's web site and TRUMPET Newsmagazine (their spelling, not mine), and Wright's andObama's writings and public statements! (And lest we forget, Obama disinvited Wright to invite his replacement at TUCC, Pastor Moss. Now there's distancing and collegial friendship with your pastor for you!)

"All this other nonsense," PLAISTED writes (primarily self-criticsim, we can now see) "including Rick's original insinuations, are a hysterical smear."

Please let me go, now, I need to run around like a swine after pearls.

[Then again, that would mean I was following PLAISTED, wouldn't it... Help, I've fallen and I can't get up."]

P.S. Hey PLAISTED, would you argue that the serpent did some good there in the Garden of Eden where there was intellectual poverty in the hearts and minds of Adam and Eve, deprived, as they were, by God of the fruits of the tree and of the knowledge of good and evil? Come on, PLAISTED, they were just hungry and oppressed by God (and not yet able to blame the white man) and seeking a little buzz from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!

Wasn't Satan just trying to help Jesus wih some bread and power during His 40 days in the desert? Come on, PLAISTED one -- wasn't he just trying to feed Jesus' hunger and get Him to grab hold of the earthly power and justice His followers so deeply wanted?

Then again, the inconvenient truth of God's very own Word -- those spoken by Jesus Himself -- mess up your cute little theology, PLAISTED: "MAN DOES NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE BUT BY EVERY WORD WHICH PROCEEDS FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD."

I want those who suffer under injustice and hunger to know justice and fulfillment and fairness and grace, but not that which is reahed forth and offered from the hands and lips and taunts of Satan -- instead, from the lasting truth of God and His Word!

Then again, I guess I'm not Christian enough to understand the Word of God like you and Jeremiah and Barack and Satan do...

Hey ESENBERG, the unitiated, busy and/or lazy might appreciate this from the link you offered to the Chiacgo Tribune story [sort of reveals PLAISTED for the blind shilling JUDAS GOAT that he is, I think]:

EXCERPTS:

The rebellious son of a Baptist minister, Wright was hired by Trinity United when he could find no Baptist church to take him. The congregation on 95th Street, then numbering just 87, had recently adopted the motto "Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." They did not mind his fiery red Afro and black power agenda.

Wright has continued on an independent path ever since, often questioning the common sense of Scripture...

In the process, he built a spiritual empire. [AH, NOW WE KNOW WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! Empire, power, influence. CAIAPHAS, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!] The modest brown brick building that housed the church in the 1970s was converted into a day-care center when Trinity opened its new sanctuary in 1995 at 400 W. 95th St. Members run more than 80 ministries, including an outreach to gay and lesbian singles [HMMMM, "outreach" is quite the euphemism!], --also unusual for a black church.

And though Wright now wears three-piece suits on occasion, but [sic] he still dons a dashiki most times he preaches. Obama has said he is particularly inspired by Wright's ability to draw followers from all walks of life--celebrities and welfare recipients, PhDs and GEDs. It is a gift the senator aspires to emulate.

Wright again bucked convention by announcing plans to retire in May 2008 and tapping Rev. Otis Moss III as his successor. [THOUGH THE STORY ALSO SUGGESTS HIS "RETIREMENT" WAS MOST LIKELY NECESSITATED BY HIS DIVORCE FROM HIS WIFE, who still works for TRUMPET NewsmagazineAND RELATIVELY QUICK REMARRIAGE!]Many black pastors do not surrender their pulpit even when they become too feeble to serve, said Rev. Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School who met Wright in the 1980s. [WHAT THE STORY DOESN'T say, which is critical to the question of autyhority and objectivity here, is that HOPKINS ATTENDS TUCC!]

"The black church is probably the only space in America where black men can have unquestioned authority," he said. "It's hard to give that up for a lot of black male pastors."

Wright said the decision was not hard difficult. "The church is built around the personality [NOT TEACHING OR COMMANDS?] of Jesus, not Jeremiah Wright [WHOSE TEACHINGS AND COMMANDS IT IS BUILT AROUND]" he said.

...

"Growing up in the church was kind of bittersweet," said Wright's daughter Jeri, who developed a church publication into the nationally distributed Trumpet magazine. "That's when his daily life consisted of his service to God's people. I've always loved going to church and going to worship. At the same time I felt my church took my father from me."

She credits her mother, Janet, for helping her understand.

"It was my mother that taught us to separate the man from the ministry," his daughter said. "No matter what happened in our lives, she never wanted us to have any ill feelings toward the church or toward our father. `Yes, he is your father, but when he steps behind that sacred desk he is God's messenger, and never confuse the two.'|"

[...BECAUSE THEY'RE CONFUSED ENOUGH ON THEIR OWN!]

...

In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church's radical reputation.

[HEY, WHO SAYS HE IS CLOSE TO WRIGHT?!!!! YOU ALL ARE JUST HATERS AND LIARS WHO SAY SUCH THINGS! says PLAISTED the Pharisee.]

When Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly at home at Trinity. Before leaving for Harvard Law School in 1988, he responded to one of Wright's altar calls and declared a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. [A FRACTURED AND BROKEN ONE WITH A JESUS WHO IS NOT REVEALED OR PRESENT IN SCRIPTURE! IS THAT JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR WHO SAYS HE IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE? OR THE JESUS OF Louis Farrakhan, who is nothing more than a "prophet" -- and thus, if one buys and espouses Farrkhans "teachings of integrity," as Wright does at TUCC, -- a lunatic and liar who is neither Lord, Christ, the Son of God, nor risen from the dead, etc.?]

Later he would base his 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention on a Wright sermon called "Audacity to Hope," --also the inspiration for Obama's second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

[SORT OF LIKE JOE BIDEN "BASING" HIS EARLY SPEECHES ON THE WORK OF OTHERS! THEN AGAIN< JOE WASN'T PLAGIARIZING AS ELOQUENTLY AS OBAMA DOES!]

Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.

[HMMM, NOW PLAISTED SAID IT WASN'T SO. We must believe PLAISTED, though, in light of these smears from the radicallyRepublican Chicago Tribune!]

Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president. Wright cautioned Obama not to let politics change him, but he also encouraged Obama, win or lose.

Wright said, "Picture some kid who lives in Hyde Park or over in Ida B. Wells Homes or Washington Gardens, who will see Barack and say, `My God, I can be one day be that.' The amount of hope that it will give to kids who society has written off just in terms of them changing their concept of what is possible is going to be immeasurable for generations to come." | mbrachear@tribune.com

[LOOK, MY KIDS CAN BE CONFUSED, COCAINE USING LIARS AND DECIEVERS MISLED BY THE SLIGHTEST WIND OF CHANGE AND CHANCE FOR POWER AND EMPIRE! YEE HAAA, that's what I want my little Caiaphas to aspire to! ... my little Pontius... REACH FOR THE BRASS RING, boys...]

Your frothing green shirt and your oozing envy over Esenberg's appointment to a full professorship at Marquette seem to show you for the jealous, envious wanna be that you are.

It's a good thing you're a criminal defense attorney, because Obama and/or Billary are certainly going to need the help of your ilk should they make it to the White House.

It's clear from whatever MIKEY WRITES that he thinks it would be extremely fun to run a newspaper. His splendiferous ramblings are a proverbial Pandora's Box of Far Left Wing Nut Delights.

Given his comments about being a former altar boy and his flaming anger regarding Esenberg's appointment to the professorship at Marquette, it would seem that we should pray for him to have the audacity to find hope and healing from whatever was done to him in his relative youth. I am n apologist for the Catholic Church, to be sure, but it seems that you've got an axe to grind, MIKEY, and Esenberg is your grindstone.

Your profession also explains the roots of your proclivity towards McCarthy-esque mendacious and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to speak the truth in your presence. You've probably blamed every cop who's ever rrested one of your clients for being crooked conservative skull crackers.

And, dear MIKEY, it is you who are ultimetly and fundamentally racist for having accused others of being the same for using the word "pimp," saying that it is racist by its very nature because it is associated with blacks being professionals in that regard. The fact is, MIKE-O, that there are many white pimps, too -- and a shame that anyone does it no matter the race! That you choose to exclusively or primarily associate the term with blacks shows your bias! It also shows that you enjoy using provocative and erroneous bases for advancing your own agenda, no matter how specious the agenda, erroneous claim and pejorative the ad hominem attack! (Ooops, are you still too lapsed an altar boy and attorney to recall the Latin meaning of ad hominem? Sorry, MIKEY, I thought your type LIKED IT Latin!)

And now, here, you're caught with your pants down while pimping all things Democrat at the cost of the truth. (Is this why you apparently hate Esenberg and Marquette so much?) And dspising the truth at every turn.

So when you get a moment free from chewing on Esenberg's rear end, take a bite out of this: for all your argument that Farrkhan and Wright are good because they might have helped Chicagoan's, remember that the serpent -- Oh, forked tongue legalistic devil that he, like you, is -- fed Adam and Eve when they were starving for knowledge and power in the graden, and that Satn himself can quote Scripture without error, as he did to Jesus during his 40 days of trials and temptations.

And before you head off on another of your hate spweing and truth dewfying rants, read all of Ezekiel 33 and ask yourself whose blood is now or will be on your hands for the lies you speak and advance here and around the world as an "unashamed" apologist for the socio-political-religious frauds you call "righteous" and "worthy."

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?

Impossible to figure out what you and your "savior" Obama believe in! Except that it isn't the truth!

Enjoy your autobiography of Malcolm X...

Obama is no Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King! Never has been! Never will be!

As for whether I am a racist, I would gladly vote for, say, Colin Powell or Kay Coles James (and perhaps even Jimmy Carter -- now there's a man of true and undeniable and unashamed faith in Christ) any day before just about any candidate, black or white!

You have got some ego Veritas. I am floored that somewhere within your latest long winded rant you criticize Plaisted for an ad hominem attack. Veritas certainly does not refer to intellectual honesty.

(Not ego -- mine or yours -- which is what your unfounded, untenable and indefensible rantings are about. You have made claims here that cannot be supported and it is your ego that is raw and rarin' to go because you have been show, dear King, to have no clothes!)

You have made ridiculous, vague and general broad and unsubstantiated claims and, in most instances, claims clearly proven false with facts with actual source citations. In response, you act like Joseph McCarthy, running off pouting and calling everyone who dares take you on the modern equivalent of a Communist. You careneither about truth or integrity, which explains your recent response. You are more concerned with style than substance -- both in your choice of candidate to defend and your lame attempts to do just that here. When people don't run off scared by your charges of racism, etc., you simply rant with broad generaliztions, character assassination such pointed criticism -- "You have got some ego Veritas. I am floored that somewhere within your latest long winded rant you criticize Plaisted for an ad hominem attack. Veritas certainly does not refer to intellectual honesty." -- without yet even once answering any of the specific criticism's of OBAMA based on the cited source material.

As any lawyer knows: "When the law's against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; when both are against you, just argue."

You just argue! And to no end but a last ditch effort to salvage your sunken ego and intellect. You care nothing for the facts. After all, it doesn't serve your blind vision of yourself and the nation's future under an OBAMA presidency...

Like the greatest of egotists, when the facts and the law don't work for you, you resort to hyperbole and innuendo! Just like Joe McCarthy.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Since your research and intellectual skills are suspect, I provided this from WIKIPEDIA, which, though equally suspect in its credibility, serves the purpose for folks like you. [There, now that's approaching ad hominem -- though it clearly and directly addresses the subject at hand.]

Now, dear friend, do you know what ad hominem means, and why yo and PLAISTED deserve the criticism?

Neither of you are willing to address the substance, only the style and personalities of your critics -- including your personal attacks on ESENBERG and attaking me over questions of "ego."

I don't have the time or the patience to read let alone analyze your long winded rants. I get the gist of your stance, but don't give it any credence. Even if Obama vowed to adhere to some sort of hybrid Muslim/Christian theology of his own design I would still support him. You can base your vote on the purity of a candidates religous conviction, but I think there are much more important issues. I personally don't care what a candidate looks like, what makes them cry or what prophet they think is the most bad ass. I will support a candidate that has a platform that I think will set this country on the right course. I am sure we disagree with what that platform is so I am not going to waste both of our times bothering to debate it with you. I have a feeling it will devolve into you hurling insults at me.

My only point in acknowledging your attack on Plaisted was to point out your hypocrisy in an attempt to encourage you to elevate your decorum. You are condemning him for an ad hominem attack while throwing every insult you can muster. Do you not see the intellectual dishonesty in that "Veritas"?

"I don't have the time or the patience to read let alone analyze your long winded rants."

IF THIS IS LONG WINDED, then when did you find the time to analyze OBAMA? (It's also interesting to note that this may well be your longest response, defending only your own character and right to decide rather than address the fundamental question of OBAMA'S skills, intellect, claims and specific statements made by and about him -- all cited for source -- and, yet, perhaps also the most ad hominem of your writings to date. Apparently you will take the time to write when you feel you're being questioned about your intellect, yet you argue that OBAMA should not explain his contradictory and diametrically opposed stands on the divise -- not unfiying, as you noted earlier -- issues of religion and race!!! Hypocrisy at its penultimate! It's zenith!)

"I get the gist of your stance..."

NO YOU DON'T, AS YOU PROVE BELOW!

"...but don't give it any credence."

CLEARWATER REVIVAL

"Even if Obama vowed to adhere to some sort of hybrid Muslim/Christian theology of his own design I would still support him. You can base your vote on the purity of a candidates religous conviction, but I think there are much more important issues."

YOU SEE, THERE YOU GO, PROVING MY POINT! This is not a question of which religion he claims as his own, but that he claims to believe in two things that are diametrically opposed. As ou have done here, that/those stand(s) by OBAMA show his intellectual (and spiritual) immaturity and the untenable position of himself as a wise, rational and or critical thinker. It is intellectual pabalum to say that you can espouse Christian faith and endorse anti-Christian faiths.

"I personally don't care what a candidate looks like..."

NOR DO I

"...what makes them cry..."

THOUGH I DO, since it is important to me to know what grieves and moves the heart of any man or woman. "Where your heart is, there also will be your treasure."

"... or what prophet they think is the most bad ass."

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT BALAAM and a eally bad ass...

"I will support a candidate that has a platform that I think will set this country on the right course."

YES, AND THE "UNITY" CANDIDATE has apparently unified in himself intellectually and fundamentally contradictory positions on religion, in general, and his own religionand faith, in particular! So much for reliable intellect. Just pick what you believe in, whether religious or political, and stick with it. One cannot and should not be all things to all people nor serve two masters. OBAMA wants to serve Dems and Republicans alike, as the great unifier, Jesus and Mohammed alike, Wright and Farrakhan, alike, Oprah and O'Reilly, alike.

"I am sure we disagree with what that platform is so I am not going to waste both of our times bothering to debate it with you."

YOU CLEARLY DO NOT WISH TO DISCUSS IT, since yours is a losing proposition and untenable an indefensible one, at that. I could vote for Barack OBAMA if her were honest, credible and/or reliable. This discussion proves that he is neither.

"I have a feeling it will devolve into you hurling insults at me."

AD HOMINEM, AD HOMINEM,HOW LOVELY ARE YOUR BRANCHES!

Pretty thin skin there, 3rd Party.

Every Party has a pooperthat's why we invted you,3rd Party Pooper!

"My only point in acknowledging your attack on Plaisted was to point out your hypocrisy in an attempt to encourage you to elevate your decorum."

Decorum need not be elevated, since decorum, by definition, is "elevated." It is your lac of decorum that causes things to devolve here and in the body politick!

"You are condemning him for an ad hominem attack while throwing every insult you can muster."

Again, the difference is, you don't know the meaning of ad hominem. You are using the intellectual and logical midgetry of calling an ad or an well stated and sourced argument an "attack" simply because it tells AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH! And, again, in doing so, you claim that the facts and underlying issues don't matter:"I'm not going to waste both of our times bothering to debate it with you." This tack by you -- the refusal to discuss the core issues but instead attack another's character or motives, etc., which is what you've done again to me while saying the facts don't matter -- is the definition of ad hominem!

"Do you not see the intellectual dishonesty in that "Veritas"?"

NO, SINCE I DON'T SEE A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY BEHIND EVERY TRUTH!

ESENBERG does not sit in the White House every Sunday listening to GWB preach, call him spiritual advisor, donate tithes and offerings, write books extolling his virtues, dedicate whole sections of the book to his teachings, etc.

However, what RICK presumably does in relation to OSAMA BIN LADEN that BARACK SIN OBAMA has never done is denounce the teachings and wrongful actions of FARRAKHAN and WRIGHT, at whose feet he worships.

Therin lies the message of the day!

Truth is truth, not just the erroneous ramblings of pathetic posters.

RudeBaker is Rude and a Baker, Osama Bin Laden and Hitler ate bread, RudeBaker gives aid and comfort to terrorists!ESE

3rd way said... I compliment you on your creativity and again you insult me.

Keep up the good work and take care of yourself.

8:31 AM

IN LIGHT (or in the dark) OF ALL THAT YOU WROTE BEFORE THESE TWO POSTS, it's just as hard to buy your first comment above as anything but snide and facetious, especially since you ranted on just before that about how horrific my posts were to you and your sensitive nature.

Thus, when you wrote in a pouting tizzy, saying: "I compliment you on your creativity and again you insult me...Keep up the good work and take care of yourself."

You have set up a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts in which you can have it both ways, no matter how I respond.

Nice thing about vacuous commenters: they can never be nailed down on what they mean and can mean and claim to mean whatever they want once someone tries to nail them down. Oh, how so politico of you, 3rd Man!

Now I see why Obama appeals to you.

No matter what you meant, it is hard to feel sorry for you claiming you were insulted. But, again, giuilt is what you and OBAMA are about, not facts or truth or straight communication.

Or we wouldn't be where we're at right now, you and I -- oh, so united by hope and change!

NOTE: While I used the term "Man of the Year" in the original post in this thread, I was being a bit facetious, when the actual recognition of FARRAKHAN by OBAMA'S CHURCH was "Rev, Jeremiah Wright Trumpeter Lifetime Achievement Award (for Integrity in Ministry)"!*

* Just how is it that anyone buys that a Muslim teacher -- known as an Imam, as a Jew is a Rabbi, a Catholic Father/Reverend and a Protestant a Reverend/Pastor -- would use the title "MINISTER" FARRAKHAN unless his purpose, as his rhetoric over decades shows, is to denegrate, prevaricate and obfuscate the unwise into becoming apostate?

Were you WAISTED, PLAISTED, when you wrote your blog rant referenced in your post (above)? It would certainly explain why you would need to take a few days off from here. After all, writing such lies and attacks would certainly take come time and careful editing to avoid, at all costs, ever speaking much if any TRUTH!

But given all your efforts, I can see why you like OBAMA as the STANDARD BEARER of CHANGE, HOPE & UNITY! After all, with all the facts you CHANGED into lies and vitrolic venom, there's little HOPE of UNITY between those for and against anything, including your Sugar Coated Three Musketeers Bar of a Candidate (filled with plenty of air and less substance than a Snickers or Baby Ruth bar).

What a love letter you've written, MIKEY. I can't help but now believe that all have been won to your point of view and all Independents, Republicans, Conservatives and Enlightened Democrats who have, for so long, opposed your candidate have seen the light!

P.S. HOW DID YOU MISS THAT Lifetime Achievement Award in your blog-blather-torial?! And, boy oh boy, just how did you find such sweet words to ensure unity in your own party in the midst of trashing all things BILLARY ROTON (You know, that Bennifer Hillary Rodham/Bill Clinton name merging thing?!)

STILL...

VERITAS CHRISTO et MEDIA et PLAISTED

==========================

FROM "PLAISTED [WRONGS AS HE] WRITES"

Friday, January 18, 2008The Swift-Boating of Obama Begins I was heartened to see the revival of Mitt Romney in Michigan this week. There is no one still running on the Republican side (Giuliani and Thompson don’t count) who I would rather see get thumped by Clinton or Obama in November. Romney represents all that is wrong with the Republican party and does so in such an unabashed, sleazy way that his defeat would put an end to the "Reagan coalition" of greed-heads, religious nut-bags and dishonest schemers that put Junior Bush in office. A general election loss with John McCain as the nominee would be blamed on the failure of the GOP to stay "true" to its extremist roots and we would have to listen to the usual suspects bray at the moon for another four years. A Romney thumping would drive a stake in their embalmed hearts once and for all.

The only way Republicans can even get close to winning in November is if they are able to destroy our candidate. This is why I worry about Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee.

A trial balloon went up this week from the usual ugly suspects to see how vulnerable Obama is to the type of lies that they created out of whole cloth to turn just enough people against John Kerry to give Junior another predictably disastrous four years. Just as Kerry was unjustly pilloried on one of his strengths – his heroic service in Vietnam – by the GOP-funded Swift Boat front group, Obama is being attacked by wing-nuts national and local (for a laugh, check out the comments section) for his active participation in the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side. The TUCC is portrayed as unclean by the ambitious right because the church and its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has honored Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan with (get this) a laudatory magazine article in the TUCC’s house organ – which is edited by Wright’s daughter! Farrakhan, a convenient pariah due to his occasional anti-Semitic rants, is thus linked to Obama through Wright; a little game of Six Degrees of Separation that is being played not because anyone cares particularly about either Farrakhan or Wright, but rather because it serves to smear Obama.

Rev. Wright is indeed a player in Obama’s story arc. Obama has credited Wright with bringing him to the church and to a faith in Jesus Christ in the mid-80s. The title of Obama’s "Audacity of Hope" keynote address in ‘04 and his book is from a Wright sermon. Farrakhan plaudits aside, Wright has been controversial in his own right, embracing the "liberation theory" of New York reverend James Cone, emphasizing Africa’s contribution to Christianity and (gasp!) wearing dashikis. All of this is fodder for Republicans trying to take the sheen off of Obama’s media glow.

Nut-ball evangelical preachers – from Billy and Franklin Graham to whore-monger Ted Haggard – and their relationships to Republicans are somehow uncontroversial. But a black-power advocate and (with Farrakhan and others) Million Man March organizer? If this gets to be an issue – and you know, sensing traction, the talk-radio wing-nuts will make it so – it will be a little harder to build some context where African-American religious leaders like Wright are coming from and why Obama might follow.

I also assume there is more where this came from. As a community organizer in Chicago, I’d be surprised if Obama didn’t do some work with members of the Nation of Islam, if not the Nation itself, which is involved in the community in many positive ways. Right now, there is a little dweeb in the bowels of the RNC reviewing thousands of videos and pictures from the Million Man event, looking to find Obama. The coming Obama = Wright = Farrakhan smear campaign is as wrong and racist as it can be. I expect to see photos of the Black Power protest during the '68 Olympics and to hear the distant beat of African drums during ads by "independent" groups. But it might work with those who are wary of the unknown.

This is especially so because Obama has specifically positioned himself as someone who can bring in independents and some Republicans to provide a more broad-based victory and a badly-needed sense of national unity to face our various challenges. But independents are the primary target of attacks such as that on Obama’s religious congregation and the details of his community organizing. Independents who may be attracted to his message of hope and unity won’t even recognize him by the time the election rolls around.

Don't take my word for what the Republicans are capable of. Allen Raymond is a GOP operative who was hired by the party and convicted of jamming Democratic phones in New Hampshire on Election Day 2002. He has written a book about his dirty jobs and there is an interview with him this week on AlterNet. "These [wedge issues] are issues that incite people to vote on an emotional level. Often times in a survey you look for that wedge issue that gets a positive response, or the response you are looking for, from at least 60 percent of the electorate or those surveyed. And what that means is that's an overwhelming good issue." Let's see...would you be more or less willing to vote for Candidate A if you discovered that he was part of a black-power church whose pastor has heaped praise on Louis Farrakhan? Bingo!

As a former organizer myself, Barack Obama’s community work and conviction is a strong positive for me. I understand the black nationalist movement and the positive aspects of the Nation of Islam about as much as a white guy who grew up in New Holstein, Wisconsin can, but I'm not the target of the smear. If he gets the nomination, I’ve got his back against this kind of unscrupulous attack and all the others that you know are coming by those without souls, who have proved with Kerry, Max Cleland and others that they will do anything to win. But, because he is, for the most part, a blank slate and his life is, quite literally, an open book, an Obama nomination does bring with it a substantial amount of risk. You don’t know what is coming, but you know something is. For all his inspirational hope for a different kind of politics, there is no indication the Forces of Darkness will go along, even with the relatively-ethical McCain as the GOP nominee.

Unfair as it is, this is the best argument for nominating Hillary Clinton. For all of her establishment inclinations and moderate let’s-just-fix-the-damage aspirations, 18 years as a target of the Rove echo-machine have made her pretty much bullet-proof from the same sort of attacks -- as we all know from the TV writers strike, nobody likes reruns. There is Clinton fatigue, to be sure, but there is also fatigue from the shrill, often sexist attacks from the right (not to mention the MSM, but Chris Matthews apologized last night, so I suppose all is forgiven). She has indeed been tested and vetted. In a fair fight, I’d go for Obama – I’d buy the dream and fight to make it work. But a fair fight is not what’s coming. Obama may be able to get through the shit-storm. I know Hillary can and – I’m sorry – winning is more important this year than splitting hairs over who offers more "change" or "hope".

It is not, as you put it, "liberation theory," but LIBERATION THEOLOGY, which most scholars equate with the same radical KINGDOM OF THIS EARTH & FREE US FROM THE GRIPS OF ROME THEOLOGY that Jesus criticized in His day, when reminding them, and Pilate, in effect, that "My kingdom is not of this world." It is also surmised by many that it was his frustration with Jesus' unwillingness to LIBERATE the people of His day -- the oppressed subjects of ROME, including the Jews and all others -- that motivated JUDAS, CAIAPHAS and THE PHARISEES to betray and erroneously accuse and condemn Jesus. On the one hand, he couldn't do enough physically/temporally and, on the other, He posed a threat for doing far too much spiritually/eternally.

That is the theology embraced by Wright, Farrakhan and many others, Christian or otherwise.

Ought to be warning enough for the truly wise and discerning, and a reminder of why Farrakhan, Wright and their ilk are so dangerous, not only to one's temporal but also eternal security and safety.

[NO SPOOKY verification codes this time around. Must have lost the anointing.]

"I understand the black nationalist movement and the positive aspects of the Nation of Islam about as much as a white guy who grew up in New Holstein, Wisconsin can..."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

MOO! A subtle reminder that ignorance...

PLASITED WRITES:

"... but I'm not the target of the smear. If he gets the nomination, I’ve got his back against this kind of unscrupulous attack and all the others that you know are coming..."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

...is bliss.

One can only wonder how someone who confesses understands so little about the "black nationalist movement and the Nation of Islam as a white guy who grew up in New Holstein, Wisconsin can" can, with any integrity promise to have OBAMA's "back" against the "unscrupulous attack and all the others that you know are coming" -- with such a paucity of understanding [I suspect "paucity" is a tough word for so bright a legal mind as PLAISTED, but one his colleagues use regularly].

Where ignorance is bliss, character and integrity are absent, MIKEY PLAISTED!

"...who have proved with Kerry, Max Cleland and others that they will do anything to win."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

Remember, PLASTERED ONE, that they took their moves from the Democratic Pejorative Play Book of Vitriol: "How to BORK a PRESIDENT!"

PLAISTED [WRONGLY] WRIGHTS:

"But, because he is, for the most part, a blank slate and his life is, quite literally, an open book..."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

A blank slate whose writings speak: "My life has been writ upon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan -- writing's which I could not even white-wash with a ton and a half of the Devil's Snow snorted up my nose and shot into my veins!" That's why my blank book was based on a sermon a sermon by MR. WRIGHT STUFF anbd inspired BROTHER LOUIS!"

PLAISTED WRITES:

"...an Obama nomination does bring with it a substantial amount of risk. You don’t know what is coming, but you know something is."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

We know what's coming: CHANGE!

No matter who gets elected, it will be a change, just like what happens every day you greet a new day, something has changed. Every time there is an electyion, there is change. Amazing though, how no matter who you vote for, the Government always ends up in office.

PLAISTED WRITES:

"For all his inspirational hope for a different kind of politics, there is no indication the Forces of Darkness will go along, even with the relatively-ethical McCain as the GOP nominee."

VERITAS OBSERVES:

Go along!? My God, it's not like you actually invited anyone or that, as your writing reveals, you would even want anyone other than a Kool Aid Swilling Devotee of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Jim Jones Obama to come in under your tent!

And the storm came and the winds blew and the tent was blown down, and great was the fall of it, for its was built on the fallacious "pillars" of man's hope for unity and change, no matter the price, for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world [and get elected to the White House by proclaiming Christ and anti-Christ] and lose his soul?

I just happened to be surfing the net when I came across your discussion page "Shark and Shepherd". Islam aside....(as if that wasn't reason enough to loose votes) I just don't have much respect for a man, much less a presidential candidate, that won't show proper mode of conduct when saluting our flag or joining in with the resitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance".....That killed it for me. Thank you for the opportunity to make a comment on your page. I tend to agree with Veritas's view on the matter. So who would YOU recommend to vote for? Who is the LEAST of the evils? I will check back for a reply. Thanks..

About Me

I am President and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and an adjunct professor of law at Marquette University Law School. The views expressed here are my own and not those of WILL or Marquette. They are offered in my personal capacity.